Wow, I thought this was about playing DnD without Player Characters.. weird.
And, impossible???
Can you give an example of where the word has been used deceptively to assign a false etymology to the word history? The link I provided says that this word has been used to critique the subject 'history' not the word 'history' but that the anti-PC crowd have deceptively claimed that the feminists falsely understood the etymology of the word.
TD:
I had not seen your link before I posted my comment -- it was very informative.
My experience is limited to a relatively-few (less than 10) personal encounters. In each case, the word was used in such a way to disparage an assumed gender-bias in the word history -- this assumption was verified when I questioned the usage.
From your link:
All that being said, it is the “herstory”-bashers who are usually more in need of a history (and etymology) lesson. Ridiculing “herstory”-users as ignoramuses is in most cases pretty sexist itself.
While I am pleased to see that the origins of the word are not as stupid and blindly-prejudicial as I had thought, this poster seems to ignore that it's use reflects -- with some frequency -- the level of ignorance he or she decries.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Maybe you're more conservative than you think.
I find myself agreeing with you once again David. I thought you were supposed to be a conservative. How come I so often agree with you?
Maybe intelligent conservatives and intelligent liberals can find a lot of common ground when they discuss things in a non-confrontational manner. ;-)
EDIT: Any kind of online test I can take to find out if I am conservative? Last time I took one, I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
While I am pleased to see that the origins of the word are not as stupid and blindly-prejudicial as I had thought, this poster seems to ignore that it's use reflects -- with some frequency -- the level of ignorance he or she decries.
Yep. There are half-informed feminists and pro-feminists. No doubt. I've met some too.
...I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.
I used to think age and responsibility made people more conservative. Now that I've accumulated quite a bit of both, I'm not so sure.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
...I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.I used to think age and responsibility made people more conservative. Now that I've accumulated quite a bit of both, I'm not so sure.
I recall some wit saying: "He who is not a socialist at the age of 20 is in want of heart; he who is still a socialist at the age of 30 is in want of a head?". I can't remember who that was.
|
EDIT: Any kind of online test I can take to find out if I am conservative? Last time I took one, I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.
The best one I have found is right here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.This is an editorial decision, in most styles.
If you want to write by old standards, then you put yourself at the mercy of modern editorial convention.
If you find yourself longing for a "literary" standard that acknowledges only 50% of the population, I have no sympathy for your plight.
Thoughts on personal pronouns:
'They' is out because pronouns and their antecedents have to agree in number.
I have no problem with oscillating, i.e., saying,"If a student has a question, he should raise his hand" sometimes, and saying ,"If a student has a question, she should raise her hand" sometimes. This wins on all counts, as it is grammatically correct, terse/economical, as good speech and writing should be, and doesn't create any controversy.
However, it is understood that the use of 'he' does not exclude women. Furthermore, it is the male pronoun which is being neutered, so maybe men have a gripe here. And finally, using 'he' does not diminish anyone, so I don't see it as a big deal at all.
Speaking only for myself, and not for any other hypothetical 'female gamer', I prefer the terms 'lizardfolk' and 'merfolk' simply because they're more accurate. Assuming that the species in question are indeed mixed-gender, then using gender-specific terms for the whole of the species is misleading, in my opinion. I always found it a bit disconcerting to see female lizardMEN, or male merMAIDs in the game.
Agreed. For me, if I encounter a race called mermaids, I assume they are something like dryads, nymphs and lamias, only females of the species exist. Merfolk covers both females and males of the species.
Sons of Kyuss is similar, sounds like Kyuss is not an equal-opportunity recruiter and there are no females (or maybe women are immune to Kyuss worms?)
Lizardmen I didn't have that much problem about, as "men" is used in an imprecise way to refer to both males and females, but I still like lizardfolk better.
However, it is understood that the use of 'he' does not exclude women. Furthermore, it is the male pronoun which is being neutered, so maybe men have a gripe here. And finally, using 'he' does not diminish anyone, so I don't see it as a big deal at all.
Of course, therein lies a lot a problem -- some choose to "understand" otherwise, and believe that English gender-neutral forms are a willful, systematic prejudice against women.
To be fair, this is easy for an upper/middle-class white male like me to say :)
To get back to the topic, and answer a recent post -- I agree, lizardmen and mermaid are, from a gaming point of view, needlessly gender-specific (especially mermaid, which was never intended to refer to males).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sons of Kyuss is similar, sounds like Kyuss is not an equal-opportunity recruiter and there are no females (or maybe women are immune to Kyuss worms?)
This one bothers me less, or not at all. We're talking loathsome, undead creatures. Gender identity strikes me as irrelevant and meaningless.
|
...I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.I used to think age and responsibility made people more conservative. Now that I've accumulated quite a bit of both, I'm not so sure.I recall some wit saying: "He who is not a socialist at the age of 20 is in want of heart; he who is still a socialist at the age of 30 is in want of a head?". I can't remember who that was.
Winston Churchill is usually credited with the quote, although I believe he was quoting someone else. He also used liberal instead of socialist and was referring to actual political parties in the UK, (coincidentally, I'm sure, as he changed from the one to the other).
As for good political tests, I like the Political Compass.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
I took a version of that test years ago and got mapped right near Tony Benn, in the economic left and socially liberal. I wasn't too surprised.
And as I get older, I don't find I'm getting more conservative at all.
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62
Yay. I came our really close to the center.
|
|
So, if we just get someone from the Upper left quadrant, we could have talk show. ;-)
Remember what The Beatles siad: "If you go around quoting Chairman Mao, no one's going to make it with you anyhow..."
So, you know, no one is going to admit to the upper left quadrant, that's the weenie quadrant...the only one without any redeeming qualities ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So, if we just get someone from the Upper left quadrant, we could have talk show. ;-)Remember what The Beatles siad: "If you go around quoting Chairman Mao, no one's going to make it with you anyhow..."
So, you know, no one is going to admit to the upper left quadrant, that's the weenie quadrant...the only one without any redeeming qualities ;)
Yes, but people in that quadrant don't care what YOU think. They have all the answers and you will learn to appreciate their rightness.
So, if we just get someone from the Upper left quadrant, we could have talk show. ;-)Remember what The Beatles siad: "If you go around quoting Chairman Mao, no one's going to make it with you anyhow..."
So, you know, no one is going to admit to the upper left quadrant, that's the weenie quadrant...the only one without any redeeming qualities ;)
Well, it's not like fascism has anything going for it...except their designs are always better.
Actually, I wonder about these tests. I would make Communism and Fascism opposites on one pole.
|
|
So, if we just get someone from the Upper left quadrant, we could have talk show. ;-)Remember what The Beatles siad: "If you go around quoting Chairman Mao, no one's going to make it with you anyhow..."
So, you know, no one is going to admit to the upper left quadrant, that's the weenie quadrant...the only one without any redeeming qualities ;)
Well, it's not like fascism has anything going for it...except their designs are always better.
Actually, I wonder about these tests. I would make Communism and Fascism opposites on one pole.
I wouldn't, to be honest. Both exercise state control of all aspects of society, neither have any respect for individual rights, and neither is a truly sustainable system.
I think it's hilarious when the politcal left and right in the U.S. call each other "fascist" and "communist", especially right now, when both parties are basically socialist, with the only difference being degree (economically, anyway. There are real differences in social agenda, that arena being the only one where "liberal" and "conservative" apply anymore).
As to the topic of this thread: As far as the social aspects of the game are cincerned, if using a more gender-and-culture-neutral approach makes the game more accessible for a greater number of people, i'm all for it.
As for the changes in lower planar beings and such in 2e, meh. I really hated the change from "devils" and "demons" and other related issues.
As far as the "balance" issue is concerned, I think 3x was fine as far as the classes went, but screwed up the concept in the changes to the round structure, casting times, movement rules and spell disruption changes.
|
Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
Creepy. That's right about where it put me.
I think it's a good graph to show students the difference between social and political agenda (ie. a nation can have democratic-communism just as it could have fascist-capitalism).
Holy crap. I'm Nelson Mandela. Or maybe the Dalai Lama? Either way, I scored Economic Left/Right: -4.00, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
Also, shouldn't they switch around the red and blue positions on the graph so that it more reflects the colors of the conservative and liberal positions? Or is that something that was made up within the past few years?
|
|
Also, shouldn't they switch around the red and blue positions on the graph so that it more reflects the colors of the conservative and liberal positions? Or is that something that was made up within the past few years?
They just made that up during the 2000 election. Prior to that, there was no talk of red states and blue states, we were just states. Granted, originally It was just a useful graphic trick to show how the states voted, but now that we have been using it for almost a decade it has just become one more box to try and squeeze us into like the ethnic, gender, and economic boxes. I will now step down from my soap box and yeild the floor to someone else.
|
|
Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
Like I said the one puts me as being about equal with Jose Zapatero, the Prime Minister of Spain. The other lists me as a Populist Conservative. But like Digital Elf said, conservatism, when properly articulated, makes a lot of sense. ;p
|
|
Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
Creepy. That's right about where it put me.
I think it's a good graph to show students the difference between social and political agenda (ie. a nation can have democratic-communism just as it could have fascist-capitalism).
It's also good to use in showing them that facisism is not actually on the conservative/liberal spectrum, but on the authority/anarchy spectrum. I think I will use this the next time I have students who need a government class. That is why both Hitler and Stalin can properly be called facists.
Edit: I really liked the primary chart which shows that with the exception of Nader and Kucinich all of the candidates were right wing to varying degrees. I especially liked how Mike Gravel was farther right than any other candidate except Newt Gingritch, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo.
They just made that up during the 2000 election. Prior to that, there was no talk of red states and blue states, we were just states. Granted, originally It was just a useful graphic trick to show how the states voted, but now that we have been using it for almost a decade it has just become one more box to try and squeeze us into like the ethnic, gender, and economic boxes. I will now step down from my soap box and yeild the floor to someone else.
Actually, I think they changed it in 2000. Prior to that, Democrats were red (to imply a more leftist-leaning) while Republicans were blue (sort of the party of blue-bloods, or whatever).
One of the networks decided to switch it. Red was obviously associated with communism, so was arguably a negative association for the Democrats. The theory was that assigning red to the Republican party wouldn't be be construed as leftist/communist by anyone.
Regards :)
I really liked the primary chart which shows that with the exception of Nader and Kucinich all of the candidates were right wing to varying degrees. I especially liked how Mike Gravel was farther right than any other candidate except Newt Gingritch, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo.
I think that's an interesting lesson for us Americans. By international standards, even the most left-leaning of our (mainstream) politicians is pretty conservative.
Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
Maybe it's a result of you being a more polite listener? The too much forgotten half of the equation is listening. Just a thought that's been buzzing around my head for a couple of days.
OK, I played.
Mid-right populist on one, slight libertarian left/authoritarian left on the other. Pretty centrist on both.
I think this means I'm confused, or that I read a lot more into the questions asked. I dislike simple answers to complex issues.
Meh...
|
|
Maybe it's a result of you being a more polite listener? The too much forgotten half of the equation is listening. Just a thought that's been buzzing around my head for a couple of days.Well, I tried them both. One pegs me as a Populist-Leaning Liberal. The other has me as about as left-wing and liberal as Nelson Mandela. (The second one is the one I took 5 years ago and I got an only slightly more conservative score this time.)
So, my appreciation of David's civil tone and ability to debate intelligently is NOT because I'm more conservative than I think.
;-)
Another often overlooked skill is the ability to not read more into something than the person has said. Sometimes a kumquat is just a kumquat.
|
|
They just made that up during the 2000 election. Prior to that, there was no talk of red states and blue states, we were just states. Granted, originally It was just a useful graphic trick to show how the states voted, but now that we have been using it for almost a decade it has just become one more box to try and squeeze us into like the ethnic, gender, and economic boxes. I will now step down from my soap box and yeild the floor to someone else.Actually, I think they changed it in 2000. Prior to that, Democrats were red (to imply a more leftist-leaning) while Republicans were blue (sort of the party of blue-bloods, or whatever).
One of the networks decided to switch it. Red was obviously associated with communism, so was arguably a negative association for the Democrats. The theory was that assigning red to the Republican party wouldn't be be construed as leftist/communist by anyone.
Regards :)
Seems we were both right. According to this 2000 was when it became unified, CBS has been using the current scheme since 1984, while others have using other schemes. For many years ABC used yellow and blue. The use of colors to represent the states that each candidate won goes clear back to 1908. But it was only in 2000 that one consistant color scheme was used by all the media outlets.
The whole "politically correct talking" idea has been nonsense from the start, because it was based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from behaviorism, named after the linguists Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). Also known as the thesis of linguistic determinism. A hypothesis holding that the structure of a language affects the perceptions of reality of its speakers and thus influences their thought patterns and worldviews. Ergo, if you delete "naughty" words from everyone's vocabulary, people will no longer be able to think the naughty thoughts. Scrub everyone's mind clean, hey presto, everyone's polite, because of course no-one can be mean, bigoted or sadistic without having a word for it, right? Tiny problem though, the whole thing was b!%@*##s from the start. Behaviorism and its ideological underpinnings were very popular with sociologists in the 1960s/70s, when linguists and social engineers dreamed of a bloodless revolution of behavioral modification through linguistics. Feh. Today, no serious scientist, and few social philosophers, will touch behaviorism with a long stick.
The fact that Behavoirism is dead because its philosophical underpinnings (the mind is a blank slate) is junk does not mean that rats ever stopped pressing buttons for treats.
You can't eliminate all naughty thoughts from the human mind through the use of PC language but If I say "we'll go to a money lender and he will give us a loan." both males and females will default to a vision a male, and not a female, money lender.
Language can't control our thought processes completely but, as advertisers and politicians are well aware its not a bad tool for framing the topic.
After decades of resistance the the idea that you could study thought directly, the dominant paradigm became Cognitive-Behavioral, and remains so to this day.
The philosophical underpinnings of Cognitive Science are just as busted as those of Behaviourism. The mind is not a blank slate but it ain't a computer either.
First, I'll say I should never get into these discussions -- I'm just asking for trouble. I'll also warn readers that I find fault with political correctness as often as I approve of it.
However...
As for "herstory", etymologically it is not correct, I agree, but it is an interesting word to use as a stylistic point, to emphasize subjectivity of history.
With respect, I think the origin and primary use of this word invalidates any useful application.
IMO the word "herstory" is the single most offensive (and abusive) example of political correctness. Its use assigns a non-existent gender bias to the word "history." There are plenty of valid, honest criticisms to be made -- this practice is little more than lying.
I abhor attempts to establish moral high ground through the use of deceit.
A big pet peeve of mine. Regards all :)
The only place I've ever really encountered this term used in a concrete manner is in women's study courses were the point is to focus on what females were doing and how gender roles evolved between say the 16th and 18th centuries in Western Europe. When I've encountered it it has been more a play on words in light of the fact that the history of this period is traditionally done from a 'Great Men' perspective and is the story of warriors, conquerers, theologians and scientists (all necessarily male) during these periods. If one wants to study concepts of gender in western civilization then the topics of traditional history books are not going to be sufficient for the task.
...I was slightly to the left of Nelson Mandela but I was younger than and didn't have a mortgage to pay off.I used to think age and responsibility made people more conservative. Now that I've accumulated quite a bit of both, I'm not so sure.I recall some wit saying: "He who is not a socialist at the age of 20 is in want of heart; he who is still a socialist at the age of 30 is in want of a head?". I can't remember who that was.
Usually attributed to Churchill. 'Course he crossed the floor during his political career.
They just made that up during the 2000 election. Prior to that, there was no talk of red states and blue states, we were just states. Granted, originally It was just a useful graphic trick to show how the states voted, but now that we have been using it for almost a decade it has just become one more box to try and squeeze us into like the ethnic, gender, and economic boxes. I will now step down from my soap box and yeild the floor to someone else.Actually, I think they changed it in 2000. Prior to that, Democrats were red (to imply a more leftist-leaning) while Republicans were blue (sort of the party of blue-bloods, or whatever).
One of the networks decided to switch it. Red was obviously associated with communism, so was arguably a negative association for the Democrats. The theory was that assigning red to the Republican party wouldn't be be construed as leftist/communist by anyone.
Regards :)
There was no consensus prior to 2000. Some television stations might choose yellow or green to represent one side.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You can't eliminate all naughty thoughts from the human mind through the use of PC language but If I say "we'll go to a money lender and he will give us a loan." both males and females will default to a vision a male, and not a female, money lender.
This happens to me whenever I read a class entry. Until I encounter the word 'she' referring to barbarian, I picture a male barbarian. Once I read 'she' my perspective changes. Perhaps I am excessively sexist and the use of the 'gender neutral she' is for people like me.
However, it is understood that the use of 'he' does not exclude women. Furthermore, it is the male pronoun which is being neutered, so maybe men have a gripe here. And finally, using 'he' does not diminish anyone, so I don't see it as a big deal at all.
If by "it is understood" you mean "understood by old, stuffy, male professors of English."
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
If you read the Classes chapter of the Player's Handbook, you'll notice that the pronouns used change to match the gender of the iconic D&D character of that class. For example, the iconic barbarian is Krusk, a male, and the iconic druid is Vadania, a female. Thus, when the PH talks about barbarian abilities, it says "he can," and when it talks about druid abilities, it says "she can."
If you read the Classes chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Beta, you'll notice that the pronouns used change to match the gender of the iconic D&D character of that class. For example, the iconic barbarian is Amiri, a female, and the iconic druid is Lini, a female, and the iconic ranger is Harsk, a male. Thus, when the PH talks about barbarian or ranger abilities, it says "he can," and when it talks about druid abilities, it says "she can." It's grammatically correct because it's using a specific character as an example, and that character has a known gender.
And for the PH (I haven't checked the PFRPG about this yet), all of the game mechanics examples in the text by default refer to Lidda, a female, which is why they use "she." Arcane spell examples assume Mialee the Wizard (a female) is the caster and that the target is male, so "she" is always the caster and "he" is always the target. Divine spell examples assume Jozan the Cleric (a male) is the caster and that the target is male, so "he" is always the caster and "she" is always the target.
There is a method to the madness.
If by "it is understood" you mean "understood by old, stuffy, male professors of English."
To be fair, I think we'd have to add, "and speakers of the English language prior to the late 20th century." Not that I have a problem with the current practice of varying the gender of pronouns in abstract contexts. (As long as it is done well.) It's what I do. (Hopefully, well.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If by "it is understood" you mean "understood by old, stuffy, male professors of English."To be fair, I think we'd have to add, "and speakers of the English language prior to the late 20th century." Not that I have a problem with the current practice of varying the gender of pronouns in abstract contexts. (As long as it is done well.) It's what I do. (Hopefully, well.)
Actually, to be fair, we'd have to add, "and speakers of the English language between the late 19th century and the late 20th century," wouldn't we? REFERENCE. ;-)
I know I've said it already, but it is worth saying again: the gender-neutral 'he' is (was?) a relatively short-lived feature of the English language when you take a long view.
The use of the third masculine singular pronoun in English for undetermined individuals is older than the 19th century. It's used in other languages earlier than that, too.
Edit: Legal clarifications of text after the fact of long-established usage are not unusual. It is interesting that your reference dates from after the rise of some of the earliest feminist voices, when there might have just begun to be some sensitivity to these kind of questions.
For example, it is the practice of the King James Bible, which though published in 1611, was deliberately anachronistic in its style.
Edit: I checked the OED, and it notes this usage as going back to Old English (meaning 1). Unfortunately, since I only own the two-volume, examples earlier than the 18th century are cut.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
For example, it is the practice of the King James Bible, which though published in 1611, was deliberately anachronistic in its style.
Edit: I checked the OED, and it notes this usage as going back to Old English (meaning 1). Unfortunately, since I only own the two-volume, examples earlier than the 18th century are cut.
Perhaps my reference is wrong in tracing it to a later period then.
"He" started to be used as a generic pronoun by grammarians who were trying to change a long-established tradition of using they as a singular pronoun. In 1850 an Act of Parliament gave official sanction to the recently invented concept of the "generic" he. In the language used in acts of Parliament, the new law said, "words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females." Although similar language in contracts and other legal documents subsequently helped reinforce this grammatical edict in all English-speaking countries, it was often conveniently ignored. In 1879, for example, a move to admit female physicians to the all-male Massachusetts Medical society was effectively blocked on the grounds that the society's by-laws describing membership used the pronoun he.
But, certainly then, the controversy is almost as old:
Grammarians in 1879, 1922, 1931, 1957, and the 1970s have accepted "they" as a singular term that could be used in place of "he" or "he or she", though sometimes limiting it to informal constructions. Others in 1795, 1825, 1863, 1898, 1926, and 1982 argued against it for various reasons. And whatever the grammarians might argue, people have been using the singular "they" for about the last 600 years, though (as mentioned earlier) it can only be applied in certain cases. If new gender-neutral pronouns are not adopted, i'm sure that singular "they" will still be a point of contention for centuries to come.
I'm not going to give a free ride to anyone who says that it is right because it is traditional. 'They' is also traditional.
I'm afraid so.
Edit: I'm not interested in giving anybody a "free pass". I am interested in understanding old writers. Attributing to them intentions based on anachronistic standards of language is likely to misunderstand them. For example, if one treated "all men are created equal" as certainly excluding women, without sufficient contextual support. (Also, for that matter, I want to understand writers with different practices than my own.) As far as evidence goes, usage has to be the primary evidence; usage is a matter of tradition. Normative texts (such as early grammars) may stand in significant tension to usage because they want to direct usage instead of describe it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm afraid so.
** spoiler omitted **Edit: I'm not interested in giving anybody a "free pass".
Didn't mean to imply you were. There have been statements in this thread, though, that have suggested gender inclusive language is a recent 'PC' assault on the English language. Gender inclusivity is something the English language has struggled with for some time.
Just wanted to be clear. You're a good egg, Tarren Dei.
My guess: some people have likely been in (often academic?) situations where political correctness was used in a relatively uninformed and mean-spirited way, so that they acquired an allergy to certain aspects of it.
Perhaps the inclusion of mixed gender pronouns SOMETIMES has a simpler goal - mixing up your writing style to keep it a bit more interesting?
Again, sometimes, but something to consider.